Presidential Blog

30 Sep 2014 2:28 PM |
Anonymous

September 30, 2014

Dear STP Colleagues:

As you know, the Society enacted major changes in its organizational structure in 2009. At that time, the membership approved Bylaw changes that put the restructure into effect. Subsequently, Executive Committees (ECs) working within the revised structure found that some language in the Bylaws continued to be obsolete and that it would be desirable to add, delete, or rename certain committees to facilitate organizational operations. Accordingly, the current EC examined the entirety of the Bylaws attending to these sorts of issues and to typographical and grammatical errors.

The product of this review is a proposed bylaw change that is documented on the Society website at http://teachpsych.org/page-1545588. At this location, you will find the old bylaws, the proposed new bylaws, and a document that details each proposed change and the reason for that change. I invite you to examine and evaluate the proposed changes prior to an omnibus vote on the proposed changes that will take place as required by the bylaws at least two months after the proposed changes were announced in the Society Newsletter. Of course, the EC encourages your vote in favor of the changes.

I thank you for your attention to these needed changes in the Bylaws. Working with and for the Society membership has been a high point of my presidency. I thank you for the support I have received throughout the year and for the work so many of you have done to maintain and advance Society programs and operations. I have never worked with a finer group of individuals, and I’m pleased to continue that work through the remainder of 2014.

24 Jun 2014 11:30 AM |
Anonymous

The Psychology Major at Risk: Part II -- Alignments with Reality

R. Eric Landrum, 2014 STP President

Boise State University

InPart Iof this two-part series, I presented the notion of disciplinary affordances, that is, the idea earning a baccalaureate degree in psychology affords a person certain opportunities in the workforce. I attempted to make the case that for those persons with a bachelor’s degree in psychology, this degree affords a high level of generalization, that is, there are numerous career paths, most of which are not overly specialized. I ended Part I with the notion that an undergraduate education in psychology (without pursuing graduate school) may be both a blessing and a curse; a blessing because of the wide variety of options available, and a curse because the options are so generalized that students cannot directly “see” a career path afforded to them.

I believe that when this idea of disciplinary affordances is paired with the idea of alignments and student self-perceptions, the undergraduate psychology major may be at risk.

When a student becomes a psychology major, they may know about what a psychologist does (either from personal experience or television/media stereotypes). However, over 70% of psychology graduates are entering a field of study in which they will not attain the “prototypical” job in psychology – a psychologist (American Psychological Association Center for Workforce Studies, 2013). Thus, there could be a lack of alignment or even misalignment between one’s undergraduate field of study and that person’s expectations about what they can do after earning the bachelor’s degree. Affordances are about the career opportunities available to psychology bachelor’s degree recipients; alignments are about how well the student understands what they want and how well they understand the specific details of viable career paths. In discussing the challenges psychology majors face in finding a job, Jeschke, Rajecki, and Johnson (2008) noted that the problem for psychology majors was not about job availability, but the challenges were (a) inability to articulate and demonstrate skills, (b) knowing about the job market and what employers want, (c) when the job possibilities are broad, knowing how to make a decision, and (d) student’s often lacked career planning skills to be used throughout an undergraduate career.

High Alignment(Matches Between Expectations and Reality)

Low Alignment(Mismatches Between Expectations and Reality)

In my view, levels of alignment have to do with two components: a student’s understanding of what they want and accurate content knowledge about careers. Both components are needed to experience high alignment. High alignment means a match between expectations and outcomes, and that graduates are working in the type of job they expected to when they were still undergraduates. This outcome is facilitated because of self-understanding of employment preferences and meaningful self-reflection. Higher levels of alignment may lead to higher levels of career satisfaction and satisfaction with the undergraduate major. A high level of alignment might also help compensate for low pay (e.g., teacher education).

A low level of alignment means that there was a mismatch in expectations for students entering the major and the resulting careers gained as a graduate. The source of the mismatch may be that the student did not know what they really wanted, did not know the details about particular career paths, or both. Low alignment means that expectations are not met, suggesting that the situation may be ripe for less desirable outcomes, such as low satisfaction and/or low pay.

I suggest (without data) that one’s placement on this hypothetical alignment scale is student-specific and not tied to a particular academic major (unlike disciplinary affordances). Students with matches between career expectations (in part due to high levels of self-understanding and accurate knowledge about career options) and actual career realized would be at the upper end of the graphic scale provided. If there were evidence that the notion of alignments is accurate and that matches and mismatches exist, what would that evidence look like? Ideas about how to go about supporting those claims empirically is presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Potential Behavioral Indicators/Variables Which Might Validate That Students Have Alignments That Influence Their Match or Mismatch Within a Career Path

Indicators

Misalignment/ Poorer Match

Alignment/ Better Match

Career expectations after graduation

Does not know what to expect; did not engage in self-reflection about expectations

Has good idea about what to expect; has deeper self-understanding about career desires

Satisfaction with major, department, institution

Lower satisfaction in general

Generally higher levels of satisfaction

First job absenteeism and turnover rates

Absent more often, stays in first job shorter time, faster turnover

Absent less, stays in first job longer time, more engaged in the work

Starting salary and first job expectations

Did not know salary ranges, difficult to adjust compared to expected lifestyle; some entitlement bitterness

As withPart Ion affordances, the key to remember here is that these are mostly hypothetical ideas, and it is vitally important to seek empirical data to either support or refute such conjectures. There is an existing literature within psychology about some of these topics, ranging from what to expect in the workplace (Landrum & Harrold, 2003; Woods, 1987) to critical reflection about careers in psychology (Briihl, Stanny, Jarvis, Darcy, & Belter, 2008). In a survey of graduates of various majors that asked the question ‘how closely does your current job relate to your major area of study,’ one possible response to this item was “not related.” Answers on this item could be considered as one possible measure of alignment, with a higher percentage of “not related” indicating mismatches/misalignment. Here are the percentages by major of “not related” responses: health professions (1.3%), business (9.8%), fine arts (34.6%), psychology (37.3%), and other social sciences (56.5%) (Rajecki, 2007).

The Interaction of Affordances and Alignment

If you’ve readPart Iand this Part II up to this point, you’ve been introduced to these ideas of disciplinary affordances and alignments/misalignments with reality. For both the horizontal x-axis (disciplinary affordances) and the vertical y-axis (personal alignment) dimensions presented, I believe that in theory any particular student could place anywhere along those two dimensions. So although this individual variation is inherently present, a disciplinary-wide assessment of where the bulk of psychology majors and future psychology baccalaureates stand could be quite meaningful. In other words, would combining these individual dimensions make sense, be meaningful, and provide heuristic value and encourage future work in this area? Knowing our current location might help to inform the navigational path to an improved environment with desired affordances and matched alignments, and with assessment data to boot.

As you will see in the graphic here, I present my personal speculation as to how the bulk of students majoring in architecture, nursing, teacher education, and psychology might place in a two-dimensional affordances x alignments space. The relative location of any particular group is not an indicator, per se, of the value of any particular discipline, that is, nursing is not better than psychology because nursing is in the uppermost top-right quadrant. As stated earlier, I believe that any individual student can place anywhere in this two-dimensional space. However, I do believe that the combination of generalized career affordances and relatively low alignments linked to desire vs. reality mismatches can place students the discipline of psychology in an at-risk condition; now add consistent growth in the major and limited resources about career paths, and the elements of a perfect storm may be swirling.

High Alignment(Matches Between Expectations and Reality)

High GeneralizationCareers Afforded by Undergraduate Major

High SpecializationCareers Afforded by Undergraduate Major

Low Alignment(Mismatches Between Expectations and Reality)

Perhaps the 2 x 2 matrix model helps capture part of the paradox that Part I opened with – the exploding popularity of the major combined with a surprising level of dissatisfaction. Just to preview, briefly consider these potential avenues for future efforts:

psychology educators need to encourage students toward better alignment of student expectations to actual career paths – this could be addressed through accurate and realistic career insights, enhanced advising resources, a collaborative massive open online course (MOOC), promoting internship opportunities, etc.

psychology educators need to continue to work toward better measure and documentation of students’ skills and abilities at graduation; this would provide better feedback for the student, department, and potential employers about the tangible outcomes of an undergraduate degree in psychology. Taking a skills-based assessment-centered approach could help students communicate to future employers what they know and are able to do.

An emphasis on understanding careers for psychology baccalaureates has a long history (e.g., Edwards & Smith, 1988; Lunneborg & Wilson, 1985; 1987; Woods, 1987), but recent events in the short past have placed an additional focus on career development for undergraduate psychology majors. In 2007 the American Psychological Association published and adopted the Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology Major. Guideline #10 was this: Career Planning and Development – Students will emerge from the major with realistic ideas about how to implement their psychological knowledge, skills, and values in occupational pursuits in a variety of settings. The APA Board of Educational Affairs Task Force on Psychology Major Competencies has updated and revised the original 2007 document in to a new document referred to as Guidelines 2.0 (American Psychological Association, 2013). The revised Goal 5 speaks directly to the professional development of undergraduate psychology majors. The major points of Goal 5 are presented here:

Goal 5: Professional Development

Overview

The emphasis in this goal is on application of psychology-specific content and skills, effective self-reflection, project-management skills, teamwork skills, and career preparation. Foundation-level outcomes concentrate on the development of work habits and ethics to succeed in academic settings. The skills in this goal at the baccalaureate level refer to abilities that sharpen student readiness for postbaccalaureate employment, graduate school, or professional school.

These skills can be developed and refined both in traditional academic settings and in extracurricular involvement. In addition, career professionals can be enlisted to support occupational planning and pursuit. This emerging emphasis should not be construed as obligating psychology programs to obtain employment for their graduates but instead as encouraging programs to optimize the competitiveness of their graduates for securing places in the workforce.

Outcomes

5.1 Students will apply psychological content and skills to career goals.

5.2 Students will exhibit self-efficacy and self-regulation.

5.3 Students will refine project management skills.

5.4 Students will enhance teamwork capacity.

5.5 Students will develop meaningful professional direction for life after graduation.

This recent emphasis about career planning and development for psychology majors is a much welcomed event, but so much more work needs to be done.

References

American Psychological Association. (2007).APA guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major. Retrieved from www.apa.org/ed/resources.html

American Psychological Association. (2013).APA guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major: Version 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/undergrad/index.aspx

American Psychological Association Center for Workforce Studies. (2013). What percentage of undergraduate psychology majors continue on to earn graduate degrees in psychology? Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/support/education/statistics/continuing.aspx#answer

Woods, P. J. (1987). A survival manual for new hires: What to expect in the workplace. In P. J. Woods (Ed.), Is psychology for the major for you? Planning for your undergraduate years (pp. 97-104. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Note. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Psychological Association, APA Education Directorate, APA Division Two (Society for the Teaching of Psychology), or Boise State University. But they should.

We have an interesting paradox before us: we have ever increasing numbers of psychology graduates per year in the U.S. (topping 100,000 graduates for the first time in 2010-2011; National Center for Education Statistics, 2012) yet psychology majors also report high levels of dissatisfaction with the major (Light, 2010). The main focus of this two part blog entry are those individuals receiving a bachelor’s degree in psychology; in other words, baccalaureates.

I believe there are two major factors at play: the inherent career options afforded by our discipline, and the alignment of student’s understanding about careers and meaningful self-reflection compared to the reality of careers with a bachelor’s degree in psychology (a topic that I have written about previously; see Landrum, 2009). If you wish, think of these concepts as variables -- the scope of vocational opportunities afforded by study in a discipline and the degree to which there is alignment between students’ reflection about their own vocational preference and their choice of a major. So in the language of research methods, we have two main effects here: a main effect of disciplinary affordances (generality vs. specificity) and a main effect of alignment of self-motivation and accurate career knowledge (a match between knowing one’s desired outcomes and knowing how to achieve that outcome vs. a mismatch between desires and outcomes). Although main effects can be interesting, in psychology the interactions often help us to understand the complexity of the real world. In other words, perhaps an interaction can help us explain our opening paradox. I believe that there currently is an interaction, and that this interaction effect places some psychology majors at risk and provides formidable challenges for psychology educators. In this blog, I provide some data where it exists, but note that I am bootstrapping current environmental conditions as I see them into a possible explanation or theory; I hope these ideas have heuristic value and motivate additional attention and appropriate research and reflection.

The Disciplinary Affordances of Psychology

According to the American Psychological Association’s Center for Workforce Studies (2013), about 4-6% of psychology baccalaureates pursue doctoral education in psychology, and about 20-22% pursue a master’s degree in psychology. For those individuals who do earn a master’s or doctoral degree in psychology, they become more specialized, often with the goal of becoming a psychologist. This graduate-level career trajectory is similar to those of accounting majors becoming accountants, nursing majors becoming nurses, and so on – some psychology majors become psychologists. However, even with this conservative estimate, over 70% of psychology graduates do not pursue additional education in psychology. This sector of psychology graduates is the primary focus of this blog; that is, those individuals not pursuing a graduate education in psychology.

What is meant by an affordance? Gibson (1977) described the concept of affordances in regard to the properties of an environment which influence an animal’s behavior (see also Chemero, 2003). In other words, the environment an animal lives in (the physical characteristics and resources available) influences an animal’s behavioral options; “the affordances of the environment are what it offers animals, what it provides or furnishes, for good or ill” (Gibson, 1977, p. 68). What I am suggesting here is that the discipline of psychology has career affordances, and students who major in psychology (but do not go to graduate school) have opportunities and limitations afforded them because of their selection of the psychology major.

In the context of selection of and satisfaction within a career, I believe there may be a theoretical continuum of disciplinary-based affordances that ranges from highly generalized to highly specialized. Different disciplines have different career affordances. For example, it seems clear that undergraduate students majoring in accounting become accountants, students majoring in architecture become architects, students majoring in nursing become nurses, and students majoring in teacher education become teachers. But what do undergraduate psychology majors become? The APA Board of Educational Affairs Task Force on Psychology Major Competencies, led by Jane Halonen from the University of West Florida, developed a list of potential careers with a bachelor’s degree in psychology (J. Halonen, personal communication, 2013). This listing is presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Potential Careers with a Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology

Activities Director

Admissions Evaluator

Advertising Sales Representative

Alumni Director

Animal Trainer

Army Mental Health Specialist

Benefits Manager

Career/Employment Counselor

Career Information Specialist

Caseworker

Child Development Specialist

Child Welfare/Placement Caseworker

Claims Supervisor

Coach

Community Organization Worker

Community Worker

Computer Programmer

Conservation Officer

Correctional Treatment Specialist

Corrections Officer

Criminal Investigator (FBI and other)

Customer Service Representative Supervisor

Data Base Administrator

Data Base Design Analyst

Department Manager

Dietician

Disability Policy Worker

Disability Case Manager

Employee Health Maintenance Program Specialist

Employee Relations Specialist

Employment Counselor

Employment Interviewer

Financial Aid Counselor

Fund Raiser

Health Care Facility Administrator

Host/Hostess

Human Resource Advisor

Information Specialist

Job Analyst

Labor Relations Manager

Loan Officer

Management Analyst

Market Research Analyst

Mental Retardation Aide

News Writer

Occupational Analyst

Patient Resources and Reimbursement Agent

Personnel Recruiter

Police Officer

Polygraph Examiner

Preschool Teacher

Probation/Parole Officer

Project Evaluator

Psychiatric Aide/Attendant

Psychiatric Technician

Psychological Stress Evaluator

Psychosocial Rehabilitation Specialist (PSR)

Public Health Director

Public Relations Representative

Purchasing Agent

Real Estate Agent

Recreation Leader

Recreation Supervisor

Recreational Therapist

Research Assistant

Retail Salesperson

Sales Clerk

Social Services Aide

Substance Abuse Counselor

Systems Analyst

Technical Writer

Veterans Contact Representative

Veterans Counselor

Victims’ Advocate

Vocational Training Teacher

Volunteer Coordinator

Writer

Individuals who seek employment and a career with a bachelor’s degree in psychology have a wide variety of choices available, leveraging the high generalizability of the psychology baccalaureate. I would also contend that those who continue for graduate education in psychology become more specialized and focused on more prototypical, “psychologist-type” careers. In addition, I believe there are collegiate majors which afford high specialization in an undergraduate context. In fact, for each of the ‘high specialization’ examples used in this essay (accountant, architect, nurse, teacher), there is a national licensing examination and an accrediting organization. See Table 2 for the specifics.

Table 2

Examples of Highly Specialized Undergraduate Degree Programs

Undergraduate Major/Program

Licensing Exam

Accreditation Body

Prototypical Job Title

Accounting

The Uniform Certified Public Accountant (CPA) Examination

National Association of State Boards of Accountancy

Accountant

Architect

Architect Registration Examination (ARE)

National Council of Architectural Registration Boards

Architect

Nursing

NCLEX (National Council Licensure Examination)

National Council of State Boards of Nursing

Nurse

Teacher Education

PRAXIS

State Departments of Education (40 states)

Teacher

So based on my own intuitions and without data from various disciplines, I would tend to place the undergraduate disciplines in Table 2 (accountant, architect, nurse, and teacher) toward the right side of the graphic below, and the undergraduate psychology major toward the left side of the graphic below.

High GeneralizationCareers Afforded by Undergraduate Major

High SpecializationCareers Afforded by Undergraduate Major

Please remember that my depictions, hypotheses, and theories are mostly anecdotal; actual results may vary. But if there is any validity to the notion of disciplinary-based affordances with regard to career options might be captured from an empirical standpoint, the ideas provided in Table 3 may help to motivate researchers to collect data and analyze trends with may support or refute the notion of career affordances.

Table 3

Potential Behavioral Indicators/Variables Which Might Validate That Disciplines Have Affordances That Influence the Generalization or Specialization of Careers

Indicators

High Generalization Afforded by Undergraduate Major (e.g., psychology)

Easier due to generalist/liberal arts focus; additional training (without return to formal education) may suffice for career switch

Not as easy due to specific training for specific career; may require more formal education (additional training alone may not suffice)

Starting salary and first job expectations

Vague understanding of first job expectations; lower starting salaries due to high competition from others with analogous skill sets

Good understanding of first job expectations; higher starting salaries due to specialized skills, credentialing, licensure

There are some available data that are from psychology researchers and from the general literature that provide support from some of these contentions. Regarding psychology baccalaureates, salaries tend to be lower as compared to preprofessional and technical program graduates (Rajecki & Borden, 2011) and graduates report lower levels of job preparation as compared to other fields (Borden & Rajecki, 2000), perhaps due to the wide variety of jobs available (i.e., high generalization). In a direct comparison of psychology baccalaureates to graduates from nursing, business, engineering, and education, psychology majors (a) more frequently had jobs that did not specifically require a college degree, (b) had lower salaries, and (c) reported lower ratings of job relatedness compared to undergraduate degree program (Rajecki & Borden, 2009). Carnevale, Cheah, and Strohl (2012) reported that majors that are closed tied to specific occupations tend to experience lower unemployment rates, but that the specificity of a major can backfire. Recent architecture graduates experienced a 13.9% unemployment rate, believed to be linked (in part) to drastic reductions in construction-related efforts. Menand (2011) characterized it this way: “…advanced economies demand specialized knowledge and skills, and, since high school is aimed at the general learner, college is where people can be taught whey they need in order to enter a vocation. A college degree in a non-liberal field signifies competence in a specific line of work” (¶ 33).

In summary, the broad flexibility afforded to psychology baccalaureates in selecting careers with high levels of generalization may be both a blessing and a curse. It may be a blessing because there are a wide variety of options available and the importance of understanding human behavior is pervasive throughout every workplace. It may be a curse because the opportunities are so generalized that students do not know what they can do with a bachelor’s degree in psychology, they do not have a clearly identifiable job title, accurate career advising may be a challenge, and competition for non-specialized jobs and careers may be elevated. You’ve heard the phrase “jack of all trades, master of none” – perhaps the modern-day less-eloquent equivalent for psychology baccalaureates is “jack of many different career paths, specialized training in none.” That is not necessary a good or bad situation, but students need to know that it is what it is so that they can have accurate expectations and plan accordingly. In the next blog entry, I’ll explore the “other” main effect mentioned at the beginning of this blog -- student alignment, in the context of self-perceptions and self-reflections.

References

American Psychological Association. (2013). What percentage of undergraduate psychology majors continue on to earn graduate degrees in psychology? Center for Workforce Studies. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/support/education/statistics/continuing.aspx#answer

Carnevale, A. P., Cheah, B., & Strohl, J. (2012). Hard times: Not all college degrees are created equal. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. Retrieved from http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/Unemployment.Final.update1.pdf

Note. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Psychological Association, APA Education Directorate, APA Division Two (Society for the Teaching of Psychology), or Boise State University. But they should.

Active learning, flipping the classroom, student engagement, the student-as-producer model – it is sometimes difficult to know in today’s teaching environment what emerging pedagogical approaches are fads vs. meaningful trends. However, if you adhere to the scientist-educator model, then it is your obligation to explore, study, and reflect upon your personal pedagogical choices. In this brief message, my goal to bring together two important concepts: the scientist-educator model and evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs). Like the two great tastes of chocolate and peanut butter, each is pretty good on their own, but the combination provides for a powerful (and tasty) interaction.

The notion of the scientist-educator model emerged from the APA-sponsored National Conference on Undergraduate Education in Psychology held at the University of Puget Sound in 2008. The efforts of nine working groups at this conference are chronicled in an edited book by Halpern (2010), and the scientist-educator model is credited to Bernstein and his team (Bernstein, et al., 2010). Some of the key tenets of the scientist-educator model are presented here:

A scientist-educator treats professional work as an inquiry into the effectiveness of practice. It is critical to be familiar with evidence-based practice in the teaching of psychology, identifying those methods that are appropriate to one’s own teaching. Central to this enterprise is the systematic collection of evidence regarding the effectiveness of teaching and the use of these data to guide the development and refinement of both the conceptual understanding of teaching and its practice in an iterative, recursive fashion. The scientist-educator reflects on the results of the instruction, makes that work visible to peers, and redesigns course conception, measures, and activities accordingly. (p. 30)

This iterative pattern of action is reminiscent of the steps involved in action research, which are planning, acting, observing, and reflecting, with new planning following reflection. Of course the notion of evidence-based practices has been around for some time in disciplines such as medicine and clinical psychology. Saville (2009) noted that similar to clinical psychologists using treatments that are based on the best science available, so too should teachers of psychology – thus the value of an evidence-based approach pre-dates the emergence of the scientist-educator model, but this new model powerfully reinforces the notion that the planning, preparation, delivery, and assessment of what happens in the classroom should be evidence-based.

So how does one go about finding the evidence that defines an evidence-based instructional practice (EBIP)? Just as we would with any academic research topic, we look to the literature. Although the acronym EBIP is not yet universally accepted, there are useful sources of evidence-based instructional practices that provide the details about the data. Two sources that I recommend for starters would the book Evidence-based teaching (edited by Buskist & Groccia, 2011) and the article Transformational teaching: Theoretical underpinnings, basic principles, and core methods by Slavich and Zimbardo (2012). Both provide detailed overviews about the “evidence” in evidence-based teaching practices. Thus, both depth and breadth are articulated in these resources.

But there are other, convenient sources as well. I would encourage readers to take advantage of the resources provided by the Society for the Teaching of Psychology (STP) at our web siteteachpsych.org. We have resources available which have been peer reviewed (through our Office of Teaching Resources in Psychology, or OTRP) as well as open-source resources, such as ToPIX. Resources abound, such as the recently published ebook on Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum by Benassi, Overson, and Hakala (2014). This ebook is freely available as a PDF.

Just as our physician and clinician colleagues do, I encourage you to plan, act, observe, and reflect about your teaching and consider using EBIPs – as a scientist-educator, share your results with your colleagues, whether that be at a regional poster session, as shared resource on our website, at the APA convention as part a symposium, a presentation or poster at our Annual Conference on Teaching, or a manuscript submitted to our highly regarded journal Teaching of Psychology. Our students deserve the very best instruction possible, and only through a scientist-educator lens will we ever know if that is occurring.

I am truly honored and humbled to serve this year as the President of the Society for the Teaching of Psychology (STP) / Division Two of the American Psychological Association. I joined STP in 1989 as I received my PhD in cognitive psychology, and for the past 25 years, I’ve enjoyed the benefits of membership. The most important benefit, however, are the lifelong friends I have made as being part of an active and vibrant community that cares about a quality psychology education at all levels.

So you think you know about an organization after being a member for almost half of your life (yes, I turned 51 earlier this week), but I didn’t really start to understand the depth and complexity of STP until I became its Secretary in 2009. In that capacity, I was in a room with very smart and very active people who care about psychology education as much or more than I do. It is both invigorating and intimidating. Can I keep up? Fortunately, I don’t have to worry about that, because when you are part of a meaningful community, we all pitch in.

During my presidential year, my litmus test question is this – how can we better serve our members? I’m happy to report that our Executive Committee (EC) does not move like a glacier, and I’ve been so pleased with our collaborative spirit and prompt response times. Although January is about to come to a close, earlier this month we had an STP member inquire about moving our Master Teacher Competencies document from the Members-Only section of our website to a public viewundefinedshe believed that this document could have a widespread impact to all psychology teachers. Our EC conferred and concurred with our member’s suggestion, and by the end of the same day the document was made public (go Homepage – Resources – Teaching Competencies). Late last year another member inquired about resources for graduate-level educators; we certainly have many resources that would assist in this area, but they are not organized in this fashion. So we’ll be looking at how we can add organizational features to our website so that “quick hits” on a particular topic are easy to find and time-savers for teachers of psychology.

My goal is to write a presidential blog at least once a month, and in future posts I’ll highlight particular resources, grant opportunities, diversity initiatives, awards, programming, member benefits, and so on – it is an impressive organization from all perspectives. Here’s the current roster of EC members –

President-Elect

Suzie Baker

Past President

Victor Benassi

Vice President for Diversity and International Relations

Susan Nolan

Vice President for Programming

Janie Wilson

Vice President for Recognition and Awards

Beth Schwartz

Vice President for Recruiting, Retention and Public Relations

Diane Finley

Vice President for Resources

Sue Frantz

Secretary

Scott Bates

Treasurer

Dave Kreiner

Executive Director

Ted Bosack

Thank YOU for all that you do for our psychology students everywhere, everyday –